Sub menu

Sasquatch watchers following Bigfoot blogs for the latest news on their favorite subject (Removed)

REMOVED

Why was this post removed?

We at Doubtful News have decided that Bigfoot news is currently too absurd to warrant discussion on our site. There is no solid evidence that Bigfoot exists. Yet, TV shows and cryptozoology personalities have assumed the reality of the creature instead of considering all reasonable options to explain eyewitness reports. That’s not science. It’s pure speculation.

Therefore, we have decided from this point to limit our coverage of Bigfoot to any ACTUAL quality news stories that arise that have some value, not rumors or disputes between personalities or humorous mention of Bigfoot in the media. Because of the tendency of too many in the pro-Bigfoot camp to attack critics (often personally) who question the evidence, and to hype speculation for web hits and ad revenue instead of providing well-thought out arguments, we have removed this post.

This site is designed to be a place for rational exchange. The lessons we have learned from posting Bigfoot stories is that rational exchange doesn’t happen.

Please follow our Twitter feed @doubtfulnews where we may link to these news stories in lieu of placing them on the website.

Dave’s Bigfoot Show blog. We have a lot of new stuff to post in addition to links to the last two shows. Watch for them. The last encounter was in Liberty, Utah in Ogden Valley Oct 22, 2011. Very exciting. The witnes was 12 feet away.

Several other good sites are out there,includng Stan Courtney’s SquatchMarks which list virtually every sasquatch related,site,radio show and blog out there. Also,well known author and researcher Loren Coleman has Cryptomundo,maybe the site most visited by serious researchers. Great article and I check all of the blogs and various sites from time to time.

idoubtit

January 5, 2012 at 6:26 AM

I don’t consider Cryptomundo the same as the other blogs I mentioned. They do not allow free and open comment but censor responses. Also, their articles are often silly or for ad hits or asking for money. For more on why I think they are unreliable and not worthwhile, see this post: here.

TruScience

January 21, 2012 at 4:39 PM

Actually we learned quite a lot this year. We’ve confirmed 2 separate haplotypes through mtDNA testing and also confirmed or verified that the range of at least one of the haplotypes covers over a thousand miles. We’ve learned that we share an ancestries or possibly hybridization events at roughly 10k and 30k ybp. The DNA is different enough from human to be presumptively identified and there are a number of sequences that are new and unique to genbank. What this means is that at least some of the “bigfoots” are relict hominids, possibly something like homo-heidelbergensis or homo-erectus. It is pretty obvious that we are experiencing encounters with more than a single “species”. In North America we have at least 2 ape varieties (to be narrow) and then the homo variety and some cases of feral modern humans. People call anything hairy bigfoot, but the picture is more complicated. Researchers have been collecting various “hard evidence”, samples (hair, blood, flesh, bone and tooth) for a while and just sitting on them. Finally, a benefactor has agreed to pay for (nuclear DNA) testing with several independent labs willing to participate in the study. The collective results are due out in a peer reviewed journal very soon and it is speculated that we are currently in a short embargo period, where the paper has passed peer review and publication is iminent. A video documentary will also be released timed to coincide with the DNA paper’s publication.

The bigfoot community is kind of freaking out… lots of animosity and grumbling in the ranks. Everyone’s wondering what the reactions will be, what will happen and how research will change post-proof. I predict very gradual acceptance, because of crowd inertia. A skeptic won’t accept anything until the two people next to them accept it first.

Modern science has long been crippled by the vanity, reputations and insecurity of its practitioners. It’s not even “cool” to want to be a scientist anymore. Do any of you skeptics even wonder why? It’s because we shame each other unless we all act within very strict guidelines. If we express an interest in a subject that is not worthwhile to you, it’s not enough to allow it, and say, “good luck”. Instead it must be stated “you fool”. But if we all do that to each other, then no one gets to explore and question and discover without being ridiculed.

Some of us really think we don’t care, and are able to be natural, learning, questioning humans despite the repression. We will provide the answers skeptics are looking for and the proofs they demand to be worthy of their esteemed approval. Perhaps you are a necessary motivating factor. If I were raised as you were and had your mindset, I would also believe or disbelieve things without knowing, but I wasn’t and I can’t. I have to actually know, and that requires wondering, asking the question and then looking for the answer. If you don’t look for the answers, you can’t possibly learn, and that is science.

In school we are told how it all happened… black and white, don’t question it because it is fact. Who the hell wants to just know facts? When a kid asks what is left to discover?, what is left that we don’t know?… most teachers are at a loss to even say anything. And skeptics are the product… Sad.

Most of the sites I visit are skeptic sites, but I do get news from a variety of sites depending on who is tuned in to what. Typically if I want real news, I have to do some research and start a dialogue with other professionals in the field. That’s how it works. If you aren’t doing research and contributing, all you’ll get is hearsay.

Good Luck All… next stop… Lake Monsters! What common animal echolocates in Lake Okenagen?

idoubtit

January 21, 2012 at 4:50 PM

None of your stated discoveries have been confirmed.

Science is crippled? Not sure what reality you are living in. We have more science publications than ever before (TOO many, in fact) and the spinoffs from science in terms of knowledge, medical advancement and consumer products is unfathomable.

Sadly, if this is the “science” that you learned in school, it’s not correct. But I am not surprised. Your view seems typical of American culture and the scientific community has failed in achieving a more positive view. However, if you look at the Science Indicators surveys (link to nsf.gov) , scientists are still a highly regarded profession and science is still a very much respected means of gaining information.

I just googled “International Academic rankings” and that popped up first. Despite the voluminous data you linked, I wasn’t finding many international comparisons.

We most certainly are academically crippled in the US at very least. I don’t know how the social environments are in other countries so it’s not for me to state a cause and effect between the “rise of Skepticism” and the downfall of science in the US.

Part of the problem has got to be the obsession with consumptive materialism and economic growth as a prosperity indicator. Science helps long term profits and potential, but costs money in the short term, so it is overlooked and sold off instead as “mission accomplished”. It used to be that the national heroes were explorers and scientists, but they come along less frequently now, so we’ve replaced them with actors and sport figures and now that is the childhood dream for most Americans.

That is certainly not the fault of skeptical thinking, but the reverse may actually be the case. That skeptical thinking probably comes as the result of a sense of futility and the feeling that you won’t actually be able to contribute any other way. Of course, if you measure our progress by medicine (#31 in the developed world, last I checked) and consumer products (we can definitely consume), then you may have an argument.

Science is not the problem. It is merely a tool of understanding. The problem, as always, lies with the imposition by one group upon another as to how their tools should be used. As far as the scientific methods being practised today, skeptics are not relevant. Procedures are based on hypotheses and logic. The effect skeptics do have, however, is the potential to discourage exploration and curiosity, and that is my point.

You may dismiss whatever views as “unsurprising” or “typical”, but I truly would like to see a list of accomplishments by skeptics or see some evidence of their value. Maybe you can tell us what skeptic hero inspired you, and for what? otherwise I suppose that I too, am a skeptic.

idoubtit

January 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM

You are somewhat creating a skeptic straw man. Many people equate skepticism with cynicism.

I’m not sure we can really debate this here. But I do have considerable experience – I have a science degree (geology) and a Masters in Education with a Science and the Public focus.

If you are really interested in how science works, I recommend Real Science by Ziman. A good primer.

My skepticism arose because I started to question the paranormal ideas. They made no sense. I found the skeptical lit to be far more intelligent and reasonable then silly story after story of someone’s bigfoot or UFO encounter, which was never backed up by any solid evidence.

idoubtit

January 21, 2012 at 7:40 PM

Skeptical commentary today is critical as a countervoice to the very loud promotion of uncritical nonsense. Key areas here are antivaccination, homeopathy, alternative medicine and dietary supplements, witchcraft and superstition (big in Africa), psychics and the prevalence of pseudoscientific ideas.

Success today has been in fighting antivax especially. I really think your views about skepticism are pretty narrow. It’s a broad community.

TruScience

January 23, 2012 at 1:18 PM

The things you just listed, I believe we agree on. The cases of people misrepresenting scientific results or simply making false claims for profit or even just attention are abhorent to me. It is treason. Our common goal, I am sure, is the actual truth.

This thread was about bigfoot, so it’s the bigfoot skeptics I’m targetting here. I’m also looking for angles, and trying to understand why people simply refuse to look at it. I can (almost) understand being disinterested, or being of no opinion, but to take any biased view without examining and understanding the evidence, seems illogical and unsciencely. I’m not saying that you have done this personally, but it is typical of most skeptics. It’s the same reason I don’t read much about unicorns. But if I were blogging about them I would certainly want to do some research on both sides. The negative here, is that when people really do see something, they tend to stay quiet out of fear of ridicule. It is that climate of ridicule and the subsequent lack of information sharing that I find most at issue.

My own background is mechanical engineering, tools and manufacturing. The mechanical implausibility of artificial bigfoot trackline production is the most compelling piece of the puzzle for me. Not the individual prints found here and there, videos, reports etc. but the continuous tracklines of hundreds of appropriately detailed tracks, some with a stride more than triple my own. When they are found in snow without any surrounding traces, I am most impressed.

Even assuming for a moment, that a heavy-stilt-prosthesis (HSP hereby coined to mean mythical bigfoot track hoaxing device)could be designed, built and operated, the logistics and operation skills required would also be very challenging. It would require a large investment and no one seems to have gained anything financially from tracks. No one has boasted of making such a device or ever been caught with one. I think such a thing could be made, but it would take several dedicated years of work and would be very challenging. At MIT, an acquaintance works on active prostheses for amputees and I can say with confidence that HSP’s do not yet exist. So… how can we explain these tracks?

I’m going to throw in a comment here about something that has gotten me progressively irritated. I’ll leave the article as it is.

Sadly, Bigfoot Evidence is reporting material from dubious and unreliable sources in what seems like an effort to get web hits. Whole articles are often reprinted (with permission at least). But, worst of all, Shawn has allowed too much low brow, ad hominem and mean comments to continue there. The discussion is about half trash these days so I can’t recommend this site.

It’s too bad that this is the way that many Crypto blogs go. There are not many places you CAN go for any sort of civilized discussion about this.

Comments are closed.

Search for:

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.